I, for one, am in favor of better television reception. I believe that our lives will be improved by the new clarity given the fracases of Laverne and Shirley, and a crisper linear definition of the head of Harry Reasoner. However, has any thought been given to the esthetics of placing a 365‐foot antenna atop one of the towers of the World Trade Center to achieve this better reception?

Controversies concerning its design and necessity notwithstanding, the World Trade Center most definitely exists with high visibility on the New York City scene. Throughout the metropolitan area, one can look toward Manhattan and espy the Siamese monoliths peeping back at you from over the horizon.

I am affected by the towers. I have stood waterside in Jersey City and noted the powerful effect the towers' massive symmetry has on the entire view of New York harbor. I have stood on Trinity Place directly opposite the buildings and my eyes have traveled up from the plaza sculpture, to the linear gleaming beams of one tower, to the beams of the other, and followed those beamlines shooting to incredible height, as I leaned backward to see the point in the sky where they abruptly halt.

I like the World Trade Center. And the reason I like it is that a basically mundane building was made exceptional by, duality. Number One was seemingly cloned into Number Two, and together they are unique. When you stand in one, you are stunned by the incredible mirror image in the other. When you stand. away from the towers, those masses become, as Kong observed, a most spectacular and attractive part of the primeval scene of which our skyline is a modern recreation.

The twin towers are distinctive for their rectangular symmetry. But their perfection Is already marred by the crude test transmission antenna erected on the northern tower's roof. To replace this with a more massive, permanent antenna will destroy any esthetic quality the towers may now possess.

Look at the Empire State Building, designed to stand alone and point upward. Its function as the base for transmission tower is as suitable for it as to hold a candle is a suitable function for a candlestick. The transmission tower adds glory to an already glorious building, one that reaches its ultimate perfection by coming to a point,

I've watched television in many parts of the region, arid poor reception has seldom detracted from my immense enjoyment of the tube's many gifts. The Empire State Building is transmitting admirably. Let us keep the antenna where it is, and not distort “reception” for the viewer of the urban landscape.

ALAN JACOBS New York, Jan. 14, 1977

Flawed French Defense

To the Editor:

I am not an Israeli. I am an Indian Hindu. But my outraged moral sense compels public condemnation of the French action in releasing a diabolical criminal.

No government can defend its, uncivilized conduct by referring to, its domestic legal system. The French President has done precisely that.

And the attempted defense is less than honest. The arrest was made by the French themselves. Presumably they had reasonable prima facie evidence of guilt on which they acted. How could the releaie be justified on the ground that the West German Government did not present evidence promptly?

Every standard extradition treaty provides a much longer period during which the requesting state prepares itself for formal judicial proceedings. It is impossible to justify the action of the French courts, but the question is: Did the French Government request its own courts to wait for a sufficiently long time before letting, the murderer go? Mr. Giscard has, significantly, said nothing about it.

It is a sad fact that Islamic states are not willing to deal firmly with terrorists. Pakistan released only last week hijackers of an Indian plane, caught red‐handed, on the ground of want of evidence. That civilized Western states should behave in the same manner makes international law more sham than it already is.

I just don't understand why the French Government had to release Abu Daoud, the Palestinian terrorist responsible for several killings; in order not to lose the Arabs' friendship when, recently, the Syrian Government did not hesitate to shoot a group of Palestinians accused of terror killings.

I guess it is easier for the Syrians to hang Arab brothers than it is for the French to bring to trial Arab friends.

GABRIEL HAWAWINI New York, Jan. 12, 1977

Our Lawless Drivers

To the Editor:

Drivers in Manhattan have become outrageously and dangerously lawless. Disregard of traffic signals is a commonplace; driver after driver “stretches” the light, thus risking collision with vehicles starting in the other direction or hitting a pedestrian who has the right of way. Equally menacing is the speed at which many cars turn corners. I have been cut off time and again by cars that Miss my toes by a few inches. Also, I see cars and trucks, including some monsters, when they have the opportunity, fly through the street at alarming speed, intolerable in a city.

While such behavior is not to be tolerated in any circumstances, it is safe to assume that some of it is due to irritation at traffic tangles and tie‐ups, which cause constant delays. Many of these could be avoided if the Department of Traffic would install the so‐called “box” system, which works so well in London.

All this involves is the painting of a huge white cross at busy intersections and then forbidding any vehicle to enter the crossed, or “boxed,” area unless it is clear—an inexpensive and effective method of avoiding needless tie‐ups and consequent delays. When he does not suffer excessive delays, the driver may be less inclined to break the law and risk accidents.

MORTON FREUND New York, Jan. 9, 1977

After Nadjari: ‘Who'll Protect Our Cookies?’

To the Editor:

One by one, Nadjari's indictments against our politicians, lawyers and judges are dismissed by Justice Sandler and by the very courts Nadjar. was mandated to investigate—and we are made to believe the illusion that our judges are clean as hounds' teeth (the lucky dogs!).

It's obvious, we are told, that Justice Murtagh and the grand juries were duped—and, to prove that influence‐peddling never existed, they simply find “faulty” the indictments against the politically influential. And so the list grows longer: Mackel, Rao, Saypol, Brust, Mercorella, DeSapio, DiFalco and finally, almost inevitably, Cunningham.

Mr. Nadjari has devoted 23 years serving the public. At the time of his appointment as special prosecutor, the press reported that his record as a public prosecutor consisted of some 250 convictions, a handful of acquittals and only two subsequent reversals. All this took place in the very same courtrooms and before the very same judges now seeking to discredit him.

Are we asked to believe that Nadjari, so obviously competent against criminals, became incompetent only when pitted against the criminal justice system? If so, how does one explain the lack of “faulty” indictments against lesser officials and his “incompetency” only against politicians, lawyers and judges?

Is the City Club the only voice in the wilderness? Where are all our concerned citizens? Who tranquilized the enraged news media—Governor Carey perhaps? Why hasn't Nelson Rockefeller stepped forward to protest the emasculation of the special bureau he created and whose need was, and still is, so obvious?

Crime in the streets is a reflecttion of the morality at each level of our government, from the Governor's Mansion to the local precinct. For a while, we were lucky enough to have a special prosecutor who cared enough and who dared enough to try to clean up corruption at all levels. And, if it wasn't always easy to catch the biggies with their hands in the cookie jars, the number of missing cookies was surely reduced just because Nadjari was there.

Who will protect our cookies now? Forget the cookies! We'll be lucky if we can keep the cookie jars.

VICTOR BESSO New York, Jan. 17, 1977

On Schultze's Ideas.

To the Editor:

This week's report of Mr. Schultze's testimony before the Senate Banking Committee is a little alarming in two respects.

His negative attitude toward industries where prices do not drop in a recession pays vestigial homage to the pre‐Keynesian concept that business downturns were self‐correcting and were reversed by the combined effects of wage and price reductions.

Attitudes toward import controls also have their historical origins. Across‐the‐board imposition of import controls will, in some cases, shift the economic adjustment problem to economies that are even weaker than those on whose behalf the controls are imposed. Nevertheless, it is well to remember that the theoretical underpinning of free trade is the argument, of the classical economists, that it. will increase overall productivity. This argument loses much, if not all, of its force when labor surpluses exist in most countries. One has to ask why be concerned with increasing the average productivity of those who are employed when large numbers of people are doing nothing.

Albert Shanker's hue and cry about “New Dangers to Union Democracy” [advertisement Dec. 26], which he considers threatened by the intrusion of “outsiders” in the Steelworkers Union election, would gain credibility were it not for organized labor's thoroughly dismal record in that area. As such, his gnat‐straining exercise can only be viewed as a partisan effort in behalf of labor's establishment to defeat Ed Sadlowski, the challenger.

Mr. Shanker's concern for union democracy was nowhere in evidence during a series of union elections that evinced wholesale fraud and even murders. Nor has he or George Meany ever expressed disapproval of the system of one‐party oligarchies that dominate organized labor and treat dissent as a form of subversion.

Indeed, the charge of “outsider intrusion” could be viewed in much the same light as similar charges leveled at Shanker by segregationists during the civil rights marches. As if mindful of the flimsiness of his argument, he concedes in certain union situations the right of the public (outsiders) to intervene, with, however, an absurd caveat: only when “asked to do so by the labor movement.” This is arrant nonsense. Since when did the conscience of Americans require an official imprimatur to engage in the most diverse causes?

Labor's real attitude toward union democracy was reflected hack in 1959 during debate on the bill of rights provision for union members of the Landrum‐Griffin bill. Arthur J. Goldberg, as A.F.L.‐C.I.O. spokesman, arguing against the rights clause, stated: “Opposition to union leadership has often been termed, and perhaps. correctly [emphasis added],, a divisive force which tended to weaken the union in its attempt to organize or to bargain collectively.”

Archibald Cox, in opposition to labor's position, took this stand: “A union governed by dictatorial officials might be able to perform its economic function ... [but] an industrial worker gains no human rights by substituting an autocratic officialdom for the tyranny of the boss.”

Organized labor's failure to broaden union democracy has led to a proliferation of wildcat strikes and rejection of officially approved contracts. Moreover, unionists, voting in national elections, have ignored the recommendations of those who tell them what to do without consulting them.

Whatever the outcome of the steelworkers election, it is apparent that an aging labor establishment fears the “intrusion” of those representing new generations and attitudes. This accounts for the strabismic perception of “new dangers” where old ones have been consistently ignored.

TEDDY DIAMOND New York, Jan. 14, 1977

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.